12:36 a.m.
Hi,
I'm reviewing a package that is a re-implementation of a proprietary
game. The code is written from scratch, but some of the artwork
(graphics) is still taken from the original game. All of the graphics
are going to be replaced but it's not finished yet. Roughly half of it
has been replaced. Would that be allowed in RPM Fusion or not ?
My feeling is the game is not acceptable until all the graphics have
been replaced, but I'd like more educated opinions. Actually, it would
then be eligible for Fedora, imo.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024
http://pushover.sf.net
Regards,
Xavier
2:48 p.m.
--- On Mon, 1/4/10, Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org> wrote:
From: Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org>
Subject: Legal opinion : partly non free graphics
To: "RPM Fusion developers discussion list"
<rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org>
Cc: "Tom Callaway" <spot(a)fedoraproject.org>
Date: Monday, January 4, 2010, 7:36 PM
Hi,
I'm reviewing a package that is a re-implementation of a
proprietary
game. The code is written from scratch, but some of the
artwork
(graphics) is still taken from the original game. All of
the graphics
are going to be replaced but it's not finished yet. Roughly
half of it
has been replaced. Would that be allowed in RPM Fusion or
not ?
My feeling is the game is not acceptable until all the
graphics have
been replaced, but I'd like more educated opinions.
Actually, it would
then be eligible for Fedora, imo.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024
http://pushover.sf.net
Regards,
Xavier
I'm not a Lawyer or anything, but I would pose this question: Are the non-free
graphics allowed to be redistributed? If the license states that they are, but can't
be altered, or used for commercial purposes then I would be inclined to say they are
permissible as a non-free package, but if it says they cannot be redistributed at all,
then we can't use them. If you do intend to clean it up by substituting free artwork,
audio, etc. and that would make it Fedora eligible, the Fedora Artwork team may be able to
help with making free replacements.
Regards,
John
6:24 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Arntz <jsarntz(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not a Lawyer or anything, but I would pose this question: Are
the non-free graphics allowed to be redistributed? If the license states that they are,
but can't be altered, or used for commercial purposes then I would be inclined to say
they are permissible as a non-free package, but if it says they cannot be redistributed at
all, then we can't use them. If you do intend to clean it up by substituting free
artwork, audio, etc. and that would make it Fedora eligible, the Fedora Artwork team may
be able to help with making free replacements.
Upstream is already working in replacing the graphics but it is a slow
process and it seems there are very few people interested in helping.
I don't know what's the status of the original nonfree graphics. It
might be daunting to know because the original game is quite old
having been released almost two decades ago.
BTW, I think that this is the same issue xrick has and xrick is in RPM
Fusion nonfree.
http://www.bigorno.net/xrick/download.html
Bye,
Andrea.
6:27 p.m.
On 01/05/2010 12:24 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Arntz<jsarntz(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I'm not a Lawyer or anything, but I would pose this question: Are the non-free
graphics allowed to be redistributed? If the license states that they are, but can't
be altered, or used for commercial purposes then I would be inclined to say they are
permissible as a non-free package, but if it says they cannot be redistributed at all,
then we can't use them. If you do intend to clean it up by substituting free artwork,
audio, etc. and that would make it Fedora eligible, the Fedora Artwork team may be able to
help with making free replacements.
Upstream is already working in replacing the graphics but it is a slow
process and it seems there are very few people interested in helping.
I don't know what's the status of the original nonfree graphics.
In the absense of a clear license with redistributability rights, it's
safest to assume there is no license or permission.
-- Rex
8:02 p.m.
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM, John Arntz <jsarntz(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I'm not a Lawyer or anything, but I would pose this question: Are the non-free
graphics allowed to be redistributed? If the license states that they are, but can't
be altered, or used for commercial purposes then I would be inclined to say they are
permissible as a non-free package, but if it says they cannot be redistributed at all,
then we can't use them. If you do intend to clean it up by substituting free artwork,
audio, etc. and that would make it Fedora eligible, the Fedora Artwork team may be able to
help with making free replacements.
Upstream is already working in replacing the graphics but it is a slow
process and it seems there are very few people interested in helping.
As suggested above, may be submit the issue to Fedora Artwork team ? I
quickly browsed Artwork and Games SIGs pages, but I didn't see anything
targeted toward helping with graphics replacement though, but I might
just have been too fast.
I don't know what's the status of the original nonfree
graphics. It
might be daunting to know because the original game is quite old
having been released almost two decades ago.
There is a ticket opened with upstream about this issue.
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2349520&...
The last 2 comments are from me. I hope upstream can update us on the
graphics licensing status.
BTW, I think that this is the same issue xrick has and xrick is in
RPM
Fusion nonfree.
http://www.bigorno.net/xrick/download.html
So either we'll get pushover in RPM Fusion or we'll loose xrick ? hohum...
Bye,
Andrea.
Cheers,
Xavier
8:19 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org> wrote:
As suggested above, may be submit the issue to Fedora Artwork team ?
I
quickly browsed Artwork and Games SIGs pages, but I didn't see anything
targeted toward helping with graphics replacement though, but I might
just have been too fast.
My impression is that the Artowork team really doesn't care much about
games and it seems really to be too small to cope with other issues
too:
https://fedorahosted.org/design-team/report/6
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2349520&...
The last 2 comments are from me. I hope upstream can update us on the
graphics licensing status.
Well, if you want to know about the graphics licensing you should
really ask the original author - if you can track him down.
> BTW, I think that this is the same issue xrick has and xrick is
in RPM
> Fusion nonfree.
> http://www.bigorno.net/xrick/download.html
>
So either we'll get pushover in RPM Fusion or we'll loose xrick ? hohum...
That's life :) BTW, I really hope to have them both in RPM Fusion
nonfree. After all, that's what nonfree should be for. I don't really
want to think about *another* repository.
Bye,
Andrea.
5:43 a.m.
--- On Tue, 1/5/10, Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org>
wrote:
> As suggested above, may be submit the issue to Fedora
Artwork team ? I
> quickly browsed Artwork and Games SIGs pages, but I
didn't see anything
> targeted toward helping with graphics replacement
though, but I might
> just have been too fast.
My impression is that the Artowork team really doesn't care
much about
games and it seems really to be too small to cope with
other issues
too:
https://fedorahosted.org/design-team/report/6
>
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2349520&...
> The last 2 comments are from me. I hope upstream can
update us on the
> graphics licensing status.
The reason I had brought up the Artwork team is because in the Games-SIG mailing list,
that was something that was brought up when it was found out one of the Worms-like games
contained non-free graphics/audio after it had been in Fedora for a while. But I don't
ever remember if there was ever an actual resolution with it.
9:11 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org> wrote:
Hi,
I'm reviewing a package that is a re-implementation of a proprietary
game. The code is written from scratch, but some of the artwork
(graphics) is still taken from the original game. All of the graphics
are going to be replaced but it's not finished yet. Roughly half of it
has been replaced. Would that be allowed in RPM Fusion or not ?
My feeling is the game is not acceptable until all the graphics have
been replaced, but I'd like more educated opinions. Actually, it would
then be eligible for Fedora, imo.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024
http://pushover.sf.net
Can the Steering Committee say something about this issue? Xavier is
blocking the review request because of this.
Thanks!
Andrea.
6:06 p.m.
Hi,
On 01/22/2010 10:11 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Xavier
Bachelot<xavier(a)bachelot.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm reviewing a package that is a re-implementation of a proprietary
> game. The code is written from scratch, but some of the artwork
> (graphics) is still taken from the original game. All of the graphics
> are going to be replaced but it's not finished yet. Roughly half of it
> has been replaced. Would that be allowed in RPM Fusion or not ?
> My feeling is the game is not acceptable until all the graphics have
> been replaced, but I'd like more educated opinions. Actually, it would
> then be eligible for Fedora, imo.
>
> http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1024
> http://pushover.sf.net
Can the Steering Committee say something about this issue? Xavier is
blocking the review request because of this.
I'm afraid the steering committee is pretty much non functional, and I'm not
sure that is going to change (yes that is a problem, volunteers ?)
But for this specific case I think that what we need is something akin to
Debian's ftpmasters. Since the persons hosting the stuff are the ones who
are exposed to the most legal risk (I think IANAL).
So I would like to suggest the following procedure for cases like this:
1) We need a list of people hosting files
(Question, do we count builders in this ?, or just public servers
serving rpmfusion "content")
(Note this step is a one time exercise, if we keep an up2date list of
this on the wiki after this)
2) When something like this happens, those people need to vote, if we
prefer anonymous voting, I suggest an independent third party sends
out please enter your vote mails, and collect answers.
3) If there are no "no votes", the package can get in, otherwise it
cannot. Yes this makes no a veto, but that seems the reasonable way
here.
Regards,
Hans
10:28 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl> wrote:
I'm afraid the steering committee is pretty much non functional,
and I'm not
sure that is going to change (yes that is a problem, volunteers ?)
But for this specific case I think that what we need is something akin to
Debian's ftpmasters. Since the persons hosting the stuff are the ones who
are exposed to the most legal risk (I think IANAL).
So I would like to suggest the following procedure for cases like this:
1) We need a list of people hosting files
(Question, do we count builders in this ?, or just public servers
serving rpmfusion "content")
(Note this step is a one time exercise, if we keep an up2date list of
this on the wiki after this)
2) When something like this happens, those people need to vote, if we
prefer anonymous voting, I suggest an independent third party sends
out please enter your vote mails, and collect answers.
3) If there are no "no votes", the package can get in, otherwise it
cannot. Yes this makes no a veto, but that seems the reasonable way
here.
I agree with you. Let's create RPM Fusion repomasters ;)
Can anyone in this situation please step up? We first need to compile
a wiki page with a list of repomasters and then it would be nice to
have a mailing list where someone could mail these requests.
BTW, what happens if no repomaster replies or if not all repomasters reply?
Bye,
Andrea.
7:43 a.m.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:28:34PM +0100, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
I agree with you. Let's create RPM Fusion repomasters ;)
Can anyone in this situation please step up? We first need to compile
a wiki page with a list of repomasters and then it would be nice to
have a mailing list where someone could mail these requests.
If required I can get you a list of all mirror admins (which are
registered in the mirrormanager).
Adrian
5211
days inactive
5231
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
10 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Adrian Reber -
Andrea Musuruane -
Hans de Goede -
John Arntz -
Rex Dieter -
Xavier Bachelot